I think the Minister has been very unfair to the House in his introduction of this measure. Let me say, of course, that as the Minister failed to bring in a new Bill since June last, it is essential that power be given to continue the present Act in operation but that fact does not exonerate the Government or the Minister from the responsibility they have and does not relieve them of condemnation for their actions in delaying, first of all, the publication of the report and secondly, for their failure to come to a decision on the report. When I as Minister for Justice introduced a Continuation Bill in 1950 I was jeered at, scorned, and held up to ridicule by the Minister, Deputy Boland as he then was, and Deputies sitting behind him on these benches. They charged me with shirking responsibility when I set up a commission to inquire into the matter. The Minister has been kind enough to say this evening that the commission has made recommendations of a very comprehensive and complex nature. Therefore I presume that when the Minister and his back-benchers, Deputy Moran in particular, said that any Government or any Minister could solve the matter in 24 hours in 1950—the Minister has found it impossible to solve it himself since the 24th June last and that is considerably more than 24 hours—they were not then aware of the length of time it would take to deal with the problems that have to be considered. What I particularly complain about is that the Minister has not published the report of the commission since June last and, secondly, that he now comes in with this Continuation Bill. When the Minister was in opposition, he said that I could proceed with a new Bill without the slightest trouble and that I had made a very bad case for the continuation of the existing Act. If I made a bad case for the continuation of the Act at that time, it was certainly better than the case the Minister has made for it now, because he made none at all. It is agreed however that we must have this Bill because a permanent amending Bill is not ready.
My defence for not allowing the Bill to lapse two years ago was that it would be unfair to let it lapse at such short notice, that people should get an opportunity of making their case, and that, for the purpose of finding out what the case for and against the continuance of rent restrictions was, a commission should be set up. I was jeered at and told that I should set up a commission to inquire into all the commissions and the House was held up for a considerable time. It is very hard to listen with patience to the Minister's explanation now of the action of the present Government when one considers their attitude when they were in opposition. While I do admit that a Party in opposition, if they are anyway unscrupulous, can sometimes play a game that they do not play when they are in Government, I think it is a bad practice and it is a principle that should be rejected at the earliest possible moment. The problems that are presented in this House should be faced in a factual way and an attempt should be made to solve the problem, whatever it is, in the interests of the country as a whole without trying to make any political capital out of it. I cannot refrain from drawing the attention of the House through you, Sir, to what the Minister, then Deputy Boland said on the Rent Restrictions Bill which I introduced in 1950.
The Minister for Justice, who was then in opposition, said that the introduction of my Bill and the fact that I was extending it for two years and was referring the problem to a commission was a bit thick. Surely to goodness it is a bit thick to extend this Bill for another 12 months. Why should the House be asked to do that? When I was Minister for Justice I said that I hoped to have the commission's report with the recommendations it contained implemented within two years. I said I hoped to do that provided I was Minister. Fortunes, however, have reversed the position. I feel that the Department generally, and the Minister in particular, should have as much anxiety as I had to see that justice is done to all parties. I am sorry the Minister has not given us any indication whatever of his intentions. He is just asking us to renew the Bill for another 12 months. He has not told us anything of the complex nature of the recommendations which the commission have made. He has not given us any indication of what we may expect in the future, nor has he said that the commission have yet finished their report on the other aspects of the question referred to them.
The position, at any rate, is that we are being left completely in the dark. I suggest, therefore, that this Bill should not get a Second Reading until the Minister either places the commission's report in the Library or publishes it forthwith. He should do either, or else give the House an indication of the difficult and complex matters which he, as Minister, and the Government have to consider before he can bring in a comprehensive measure, or, as he has said himself, amending legislation in some respects. If I were bringing in this measure now, I think I would be more positive than the Minister and his associates were in 1950. I suggest to him that he could now bring in a measure for the setting up of a fair rent court so that under it the question of rents of houses could be settled if unfair rents are being charged or if hardships are being imposed on our people.
It is an astounding situation that property owners—and mind you they are guaranteed their rights under the Constitution—are being controlled at the 1914 level. I do not think there is any fair play in that. I should like to know what the commission have to say on it. I think the Minister should have given us some indication of what the report says on that particular aspect of the question. It is a well-known fact that both the speculative builder and those who are putting older houses in repair want to sell their houses. They do not want any more lettings, especially if any of them would come under the Rent Restrictions Acts prior to 1947. I do not like the term "landlord," and so I prefer to describe those people as property owners. They fulfil a very beneficial and important role in the community by providing houses for the people at a reasonable rent. I know, of course, that there are property owners who are unreasonable and, in some cases, unjust. It is equally true to say that there are tenants who are every bit as bad, if not worse. We all know that there are tenants who have fine substantial houses rented to them, and then proceed to sub-let them. They get from the sub-letting of rooms and flats an income that is three or four times, if not five times, the rent which they themselves pay for the whole house. That is an aspect of the question on which the Minister has not said anything. Neither has he told us what are the views of the commission on it.
On the Committee Stage of the Bill which I introduced, Deputy Moran said that any school boy could bring in a Bill to solve that problem. I have the quotations here, and if anybody challenges what I say I can give the reference. I think we are all agreed that that was said. I just refer to that to show the unfairness of the then Opposition to my Bill, and to my proposal to set up what, I think, has proved to be one of the best commissions that has ever been set up. To my knowledge, the members of that commission have worked hard in order to have their report ready in the period specified. I want, from this side of the House, to thank the members of that commission for the work they have done. I do not know what the result of their labours has been, or anything about the nature of the report they have sent in. I do feel that the Minister and the Government should have had the courtesy to let some of us on this side know what that report is like. I set up the commission, and I think that, so far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, a good practice would have been established if, in a case like this, its report were made available to this side of the House as well as to the Government. If that had been done we would have knowledge of the actual facts as ascertained by the commission, both from the property owners' side and the tenants' side.
Necessity, as I say, compels this side of the House to allow the Minister to continue this Act. I think that a period of 12 months is too long. What I fear is that another 12 months will have elapsed before a Bill is introduced. Therefore we may then be faced with another continuing Bill in December, 1953. In order to force the Minister and the Government to do something, I am proposing that the Act be extended for six months only.
I am glad that the Minister has continued the sections of the 1949 Act. As he is aware, the Act of 1947 slipped up on these two particular points and when the matter was brought to the notice of the Government they agreed to amend and did amend that particular Act. I am glad the Minister is now continuing these sections, but, as I say, six months is sufficient to enable the Government to bring in the amending legislation. They should let us have the report right away, because there is no reason why a report which has been in the hands of the Government since last June cannot be published to-day. It is not necessary for the Government to wait until they have come to certain decisions upon it before the rest of the Parliament is allowed to get even one look at what is contained in the report. Therefore, I submit that the Bill should not now be given a Second Reading. The Minister would be well advised and would be treating the House better if he decided to withdraw the Bill until the report was published. Then, when we see the complex nature of the recommendations, if we feel he wants 12 months for the continuance of this measure we could give it to him. When we see the nature of the report we will know whether or not 12 months is too long and whether six months will be sufficient to allow the Government to come to a decision and bring in a Bill to make the necessary alterations and amendments in the Act.